Advertisement

Implementing an Updated “Break the Cycle” Intervention to Reduce Initiating Persons into Injecting Drug Use in an Eastern European and a US “opioid epidemic” Setting

  • Don Des JarlaisEmail author
  • Anneli Uuskula
  • Ave Talu
  • David M. Barnes
  • Mait Raag
  • Kamyar Arasteh
  • Greete Org
  • Donna Demarest
  • Jonathan Feelemyer
  • Hayley Berg
  • Susan Tross
Original Paper

Abstract

We tested the hypothesis that an updated “Break the Cycle” (BtC) intervention, based in social cognitive theory and motivational interviewing, would reduce the likelihood that current persons who inject drugs (PWID) would assist persons who do not inject drugs (non-PWID) with first injections in Tallinn, Estonia and Staten Island, New York City. 402 PWID were recruited, a baseline interview covering demographics, drug use, and assisting non-PWID with first drug injections was administered, followed by BtC intervention. 296 follow-up interviews were conducted 6 months post-intervention. Percentages assisting with first injections declined from 4.7 to 1.3% (73% reduction) in Tallinn (p < 0.02), and from 15 to 6% (60% reduction) in Staten Island (p < 0.05). Persons assisted with first injections declined from 11 to 3 in Tallinn (p = 0.02) and from 32 to 13 in Staten Island. (p = 0.024). Further implementation research on BtC interventions is urgently needed where injecting drug use is driving HIV/HCV epidemics and areas experiencing opioid epidemics.

Keywords

Injecting drug use Initiation First injection Break the cycle HIV Opioid epidemic 

Notes

Funding

This work was supported through Grant 5-DP1-DA039542 from the US National Institute on Drug Abuse and Grant # IUT34-17 from the Estonian Ministry of Education and Research. The funding agency had no role in the design, conduct, data analysis or report preparation for the study.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

All authors have declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Supplementary material

10461_2019_2467_MOESM1_ESM.docx (17 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 16 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Gossop M, Griffiths P, Powis B, Strang J. Severity of dependence and route of administration of heroin, cocaine and amphetamines. Br J Addict. 1992;87(11):1527–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Mateu-Gelabert P, Guarino H, Jessell L, Teper A. Injection and sexual HIV/HCV risk behaviors associated with nonmedical use of prescription opioids among young adults in New York City. J Subst Abuse Treat. 2015;48(1):13–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Jones CM, Christensen A, Gladden RM. Increases in prescription opioid injection abuse among treatment admissions in the United States, 2004–2013. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2017;176:89–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Mack KA, Jones CM, Ballesteros MF. Illicit drug use, illicit drug use disorders, and drug overdose deaths in metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas—United States. Am J Transplant. 2017;17(12):3241–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Des Jarlais DC, Casriel C, Friedman SR, Rosenblum A. AIDS and the transition to illicit drug injection: results of a randomized trial prevention program. Br J Addiction. 1992;87:493–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Vlahov D, Fuller CM, Ompad DC, Galea S, Des Jarlais DC. Updating the infection risk reduction hierarchy: preventing transition into injection. J Urban Health. 2004;81(1):14–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Werb D, Bluthenthal RN, Kolla G, et al. Preventing injection drug use initiation: state of the evidence and opportunities for the future. J Urban Health. 2018;95(1):91–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kermode M, Longleng V, Singh BC, Hocking J, Langkham B, Crofts N. My first time: initiation into injecting drug use in Manipur and Nagaland, north-east India. Harm Reduct J. 2007;4:19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Rotondi NK, Strike C, Kolla G, et al. Transition to injection drug use: the role of initiators. AIDS Beh. 2014;18(3):486–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hunt N, Stillwell G, Taylor C, Griffiths P. Evaluation of a brief intervention to prevent initiation into injecting drugs. Drugs. 1998;5(2):185–94.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Strike C, Rotondi M, Kolla G, et al. Interrupting the social processes linked with initiation of injection drug use: results from a pilot study. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2014;137:48–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Uuskula A, Kalikova A, Zilmer K, Tammai L, DeHovitz J. The role of injection drug use in the emergence of human immunodeficiency virus infection in Estonia. Int J Infect Dis. 2002;6(1):23–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Uuskula A, Kals M, Rajaleid K, et al. High-prevalence and high-estimated incidence of HIV infection among new injecting drug users in Estonia: need for large scale prevention programs. J Public Health (Oxf). 2008;30(2):119–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    EMCDDA. European drug report: trends and developments. Luxembourg: European Union: The European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA). 2017.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Uusküla A, Des Jarlais DC, Raag M, Pinkerton SD, Feelemyer J. Combined prevention for persons who inject drugs in the HIV epidemic in a transitional country: the case of Tallinn, Estonia. AIDS Care. 2015;27(1):105–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Uuskula A, Rajaleid K, Talu A, Abel-Ollo K, Des Jarlais DC. A decline in the prevalence of injecting drug users in Estonia, 2005–2009. Int J Drug Policy. 2013;24:312–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Uusküla A, Barnes DM, Raag M, Talu A, Tross S, Des Jarlais DC. Frequency and factors associated with providing injection initiation assistance in Tallinn, Estonia. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2018;188:64–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    NYC Department of Planning. Current population estimates. New York, NY: NYC Department of Planning; 2017.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    United States Census Bureau. 2010 Census Summary File 1: Population density by county. 2010.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    NYC Department of Planning. DP03: Selected Economic Characteristics; 2015 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, New York City and Boroughs 2016.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    NYC Department of Planning. DP05: ACS Demographic and Housing Estimates; 2015 American 812 Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, New York City and Boroughs 2016.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene. Unintentional Drug Poisoning (Overdose) Deaths Involving Opioids in New York City, 2011–2014. EPI Data Tables, 66, 1–8. 2015; http://www.nyc.gov/html/doh/downloads/pdf/epi/datatable66.pdf.
  23. 23.
    New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene. Unintentional Drug Poisoning (Overdose) Deaths Involving Opioids in New York City, 2011–2015. 2016; http://www.nyc.gov/html/doh/downloads/pdf/epi/datatable66.pdf.
  24. 24.
    Luszczynska A, Schwarzer R. Social cognitive theory. In: Conner M, Norman P, editors. Predicting health behaviour. California: University of California; 2005. p. 127–69.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Bandura A. Social cognitive theory and exercise of control over HIV infection. In: Peterson J, DiClemente R, editors. Preventing AIDS: theory and practice of behavioral interventions. New York: Plenum Press; 1993.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Miller WR, Rollnick S. Motivational interviewing: helping people change. New York: Guilford Press; 2012.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Heckathorn D. Respondent-driven sampling: A new approach to the study of hidden populations. Soc Problems. 1997;44(2):174–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Heckathorn D, Semaan S, Broadhead RS, Hughes J. Extensions of respondent-driven sampling: a new approach to the study of injection drug users aged 18–25. AIDS Behav. 2002;6(1):55–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Uuskula A, Heimer R, Dehovitz J, Fischer K, McNutt LA. Surveillance of HIV, hepatitis B virus, and hepatitis C virus in an estonian injection drug-using population: sensitivity and specificity of testing syringes for public health surveillance. J Infect Dis. 2006;193(3):455–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Uuskula A, McNutt LA, Dehovitz J, Fischer K, Heimer R. High prevalence of blood-borne virus infections and high-risk behaviour among injecting drug users in Tallinn, Estonia. Int J STD AIDS. 2007;18(1):41–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Des Jarlais DC, Perlis TE, Stimson GV, Poznyak V, Group WPIDICS. Using standardization methods for research on HIV and injecting drug use in developing/transitional countries: case study from the WHO drug injection study phase II. BMC Public Health. 2006;654:6–12.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    StataCorp. Stata Statistical Software: Release 14. College Station, TX: StataCorp LP; 2015.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Harrison L, Hughes A. The validity of self-reported drug use: Improving the accuracy of survey estimates (NIH Publication No. 97-4147, NIDA Research Monograph 167). Rockville, MD: National Institute on Drug Abuse. 1997.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Napper LE, Fisher DG, Johnson ME, Wood MM. The reliability and validity of drug users’ self reports of amphetamine use among primarily heroin and cocaine users. Addict Behav. 2010;35(4):350–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Kolla G, Strike C, Roy É, et al. Initiation stories: an examination of the narratives of people who assist with a first injection. Subst Use Misuse. 2015;50(13):1619–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Wenger LD, Lopez AM, Kral AH, Bluthenthal RN. Moral ambivalence and the decision to initiate others into injection drug use: a qualitative study in two California cities. Int J Drug Policy. 2016;37:42–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Des Jarlais DC, Marmor M, Paone D, et al. HIV incidence among injecting drug users in New York City syringe-exchange programmes. Lancet. 1996;348(9033):987–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Uuskula A, Des Jarlais DC, Kals M, et al. Expanded syringe exchange programs and reduced HIV infection among new injection drug users in Tallinn, Estonia. BMC Public Health. 2011;11:517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Casriel C, Des Jarlais DC, Rodriguez R, Friedman SR, Stepherson B, Khuri E. Working with heroin sniffers: clinical issues in preventing drug injection. J Subst Abuse Treat. 1990;7:1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Don Des Jarlais
    • 1
    Email author
  • Anneli Uuskula
    • 2
  • Ave Talu
    • 2
  • David M. Barnes
    • 1
  • Mait Raag
    • 2
  • Kamyar Arasteh
    • 1
  • Greete Org
    • 2
  • Donna Demarest
    • 3
  • Jonathan Feelemyer
    • 4
  • Hayley Berg
    • 1
  • Susan Tross
    • 5
  1. 1.Social and Behavioral Sciences, College of Global Public HealthNew York UniversityNew YorkUSA
  2. 2.Department of Family Medicine and Public HealthUniversity of TartuTartuEstonia
  3. 3.CHASI: Community Health Action of Staten IslandNew YorkUSA
  4. 4.Department of PsychiatryIcahn School of Medicine at Mount SinaiNew YorkUSA
  5. 5.HIV Center for Clinical and Behavioral Studies at The New York State Psychiatric Institute and Columbia UniversityNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations